For The Love of Wisdom and The Wisdom of Love » Latest Blog Entrieshttp://thomasjayoord.com
Thomas Jay OordTue, 03 Mar 2015 15:42:26 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1ForTheLoveOfWisdomTheWisdomOfLovehttps://feedburner.google.comThree Key Themes in Contemporary Holinesshttp://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/three-key-themes-contemporary-holiness
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/three-key-themes-contemporary-holiness#commentsWed, 18 Feb 2015 17:13:56 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/The new Renovating Holiness book is selling very well! My co-editor, Josh Broward, and I are excited to see the myriad of ways the book is sparking new conversations about what holiness might mean today. Renovating Holiness brings together 100+ Millennial and Xer leaders in the Church of the Nazarene to explore holiness afresh. The […]

]]>The new Renovating Holiness book is selling very well! My co-editor, Josh Broward, and I are excited to see the myriad of ways the book is sparking new conversations about what holiness might mean today.

Renovating Holiness brings together 100+ Millennial and Xer leaders in the Church of the Nazarene to explore holiness afresh. The book is nearly 500 pages long! Already the book is being discussed on various continents by people who care about holiness.

My own essay in Renovating Holiness offers some summary comments meant to identify key themes that emerge in the essays. I identify ten themes. In a previous blog, I focused on three of them, and in this blog I address three more…

Community counts; relationships are relevant.

Many suggest that community and relationships are central themes for understanding what some call our postmodern age. The philosophy of modernity is often criticized for being individualistic and thinking of life as disconnected. Many now seek a relational view of reality and the essential relatedness of community.

Xer and Millennial essayists in this book stress the importance of local community, church relationships, and group accountability. Many essayists say this generation sees a strong communal component to holiness. The power of church – community relationships and the life of the tribe – is a common theme.

Some essayists capture this focus by calling for renewed emphasis upon community practices, including the sacraments and other means of grace. Such practices in community prove crucial for developing the holy life. Holiness as understood by many Xers and Millennials is far more than personal decision. With John Wesley, they seem to believe holiness is a social endeavor.

It’s more about process than crisis.

For decades, people in the holiness movement have been discussing the relative roles of crisis and process in sanctification. The discussion is nuanced and complex. But it basically comes down to whether one believes sanctification is best understood as happening in a moment of decision or through a process of growth in grace. Most people affirm both crisis and process, of course. But most either implicitly or explicitly emphasize one more than the other.

Millennials and Xers writing for this book do not resolve the process vs. crisis debate. But in their essays, the majority points more to a process or growth-in-grace understanding of holiness. They speak about continual cooperating with God, increasing in Christ-likeness, ongoing spiritual transformation. In these essays, process dominates.

In light of the emphasis among Millennials and Xers upon holiness as ongoing transformation, and in light of their lack of emphasis upon holiness as second definite work, this generation of holiness leaders might prefer the word “furtherness” instead of “secondness” when thinking about their views. Whatever the language, these essays stress the ongoing life of holiness.

Other Christians are holy too.

One way to understand the diversity within Christianity is to identify particular traditions and movements. The Church of the Nazarene is the largest organized group – denomination – emerging from the so-called “holiness movement.” Not surprisingly, the movement gets its name from its special emphasis upon holiness, although what holiness entails was and is diversely understood.

Those growing up in the holiness movement have been tempted to think the Church of the Nazarene has the corner on holiness. Judging by many essays in this book, however, Xer and Millennial leaders care also about how other Christian traditions and movements understand holiness. Many essayists call readers to appreciate the traditions, practices, and ideas of denominations other than the Church of the Nazarene.

My sense in reading these essays is that Millennials and Xers have an expansive vision of the Kingdom of God. They recognize the great value and depth of other traditions, without negating the importance of the Church of the Nazarene. This may also reflect the decreasing emphasis young Christians place on denominational boundaries.

Josh and I are looking forward to your comments and to how this conversation will continue to expand!

]]>http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/three-key-themes-contemporary-holiness/feed33 Themes Young Holiness Leaders Care Abouthttp://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/3-themes-young-holiness-leaders-care
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/3-themes-young-holiness-leaders-care#commentsMon, 02 Feb 2015 17:55:23 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/I’m happy to announce that a new book I have co-edited with Josh Broward is now available. Renovating Holiness brings together 120+ Millennial and Xer leaders in the Church of the Nazarene to explore holiness afresh. The book that results is nearly 500 pages long! We wanted to include as many voices as possible. And […]

]]>I’m happy to announce that a new book I have co-edited with Josh Broward is now available. Renovating Holiness brings together 120+ Millennial and Xer leaders in the Church of the Nazarene to explore holiness afresh.

The book that results is nearly 500 pages long! We wanted to include as many voices as possible. And we wanted strong representation from Church of the Nazarene leaders outside the U.S.

My own essay offers some summary comments meant to identify key themes that emerge in the essays. I identify ten such themes, but I focus below on just three. Some of the essays in Renovating Holiness emphasize that…

There’s still a credibility gap.

Even in John Wesley’s day, many struggled with the discrepancy between how some Christians claimed holy living should look and the actual way holiness people lived. Some theories of sanctification did not match the actual practice of sanctification.

Mildred Bangs Wynkoop described this discrepancy as a “credibility gap.” Many holiness folk claimed to have lost their sin nature, for instance, but the way these folk lived their lives suggested they were still engaged in sin. Others claimed sinless perfection but failed to explain convincingly what Christian perfection involved.

In this book, Xer and Millennial essayists emphasize the importance of lived experience. Holiness must be practical, applicable, and possible. It may also be difficult, and it may mean acting in counter-cultural ways. Christ-like transformation requires breaking ingrained propensities toward sin and developing habits of life-giving love. In sum, Millennials and Xers seem to seek a realistic rather than utopic Christian life.

Being holy means engaging culture.

From its inception, those in the holiness tradition have cared about social issues. Many essayists in this book carry on this concern, some even addressing the same issues holiness leaders of yesteryear addressed. The sanctified life has a strong public component.

For instance, some writers renew the denomination’s early push for women to serve in leadership roles. Others call for greater personal discipline or abstinence. Essayists express the importance of caring for the poor. Xers and Millennials care about helping people break addictions and live healthy lives.

We also find Xers and Millennials in this book addressing social issues rarely addressed in the early holiness tradition. For instance, some speak out against nationalism, arguing that allegiance to Christ comes before allegiance to nation. Others say being holy means being environmentally responsible. I also find young holiness leaders engaging the issues of homosexuality to a greater extent, greater depth, and with different views than leaders of yesteryear.

I’m struck by the general approach many Xers and Millennials have toward popular culture. While not accepting it uncritically, they view it more favorably than holiness leaders in the early and mid-20th century. Many engage popular culture without simply castigating it, actually believing they can learn something positive from the world in which they live.

Hospitality is the way of holiness.

The final theme I find often in these essays is identified by a few as “hospitality.” Many essayists preach the importance of openness, care, and charity toward those who think differently than the essayists themselves. They welcome the stranger, both in the literal and ideological senses of “stranger.”

I see a connection between hospitality as a key form of holiness and the first theme I mentioned above: diversity. Millennials and Xers in various cultures of the world seem more aware of differences. These differences may be social, linguistic, ethnic, ideological, religious, or something else. We live in a multi-faceted world.

In this context, essayists appeal to love as the way to engage well those who are different, in whatever way, from themselves. Many seek shalom. And promoting the love of shalom means being hospitable.

Conclusion

There are many other dominant themes in the book. And I plan to explore some of those themes in future blogs.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on these. One main reason Josh and I put together Renovating Holinesswas to spark conversations to deepen, widen, and perhaps incorporate both old and new issues.

We believe we must think anew about how to respond to the timeless call to be holy as God is holy.

]]>http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/3-themes-young-holiness-leaders-care/feed1Books I’ve Been Readinghttp://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/2880
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/2880#commentsFri, 30 Jan 2015 18:54:42 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/It’s hard to overestimate the formative power of books! And I’ve been reading some excellent ones lately. I typically post a list of about ten books I’m reading every six months or so. But I missed my last installment. So I’m offering a double portion this time. Some of the books I have been reading […]

]]>It’s hard to overestimate the formative power of books! And I’ve been reading some excellent ones lately.

I typically post a list of about ten books I’m reading every six months or so. But I missed my last installment. So I’m offering a double portion this time.

Some of the books I have been reading are inspiring, others informative, and others simply address topics that interest me. I’ve read some of these books completely. But others I am only in the midst of reading.

I offer this list not only as a way to recommend these books. I do so also to portray the diverse interests that drive me as a Christian scholar.

1.) John Wesley in America, by Geordan HammondHammond is the director of the Manchester Wesley Research Center and a lecturer at Nazarene Theological College, Manchester, England. This book is a revised version of his doctoral thesis. Like most dissertations, this book explores the details of its subject matter, in this case, John Wesley’s life and impact in America. This is the first book length study of Wesley’s experience in America, and Hammond explores Wesley’s own writings and those of his contemporaries. His argument is that Wesley’s time in America served as a laboratory for how his ideas about primitive Christianity might be instituted in England.

2.) Backpacking with the Saints: Wilderness Hiking as Spiritual Practice, by Belden C. Lane
A few years ago, I read a wilderness spirituality book written by Lane, and I considered using it as a text for my theology in nature and backpacking class. But that book was too complex for my undergraduate students. This text is much better for my purposes. Lane addresses issues in spiritual formation, particular individuals from whom he gains inspiration, and talks about it all in context of particular hikes. I love this book!

3.) Embracing Vulnerability: Human and Divine, by Roberto Sirvent
This is one of those books I wish I had written. Sirvent explores the issues of divine impassibility, arguing that God must suffer and be affected by the world. This is not a new argument and one I’ve made in several books of my own. But what Sirvent does is say that an ethic that calls upon us to imitate God must imagine God to be passable and vulnerable to others. In short: an impassable God is unworthy of our imitation. Spot on.

4.) The Lost World of Adam and Eve, by John H. Walton
Walton’s previous book, The Lost World of Genesis, has been highly influential. In this advanced copy of the follow up book, Walton explores Genesis Chapters 2 and 3 in light of the human origins debate. The book begins by exploring some of the material in his previous book. It then moves to explore what is at stake when thinking about Adam and Eve, especially in relation to questions of evolution and human origins. This is important reading for Evangelicals concerned about what they think are implications for rejecting a historical Adam and Eve.

5.) Cloud of the Impossible: Negative Theology and Planetary Entanglement, by Catherine Keller
I have long been impressed by the work of Catherine Keller. Her thinking is complex and her writing evocative. This book is no different. At stake here is what our language can or cannot tell us about God. I have not yet finished this book, in part because I always need to read Keller slowly!

6.) The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal/Charismatic Imagination, by Amos Yong
This is actually a book I read in a rather cursory way earlier. But I returned to it recently, because I find it so rich. I used it as a conversation partner in my own recent writing on miracles. Although my views are different in some ways than Yong’s, I find this book highly instructive and helpful. This is an important work.

7.) Changing Our Mind: A Call from America’s Leading Evangelical Ethics Scholar for Full Acceptance of LBGT in the Church, by David Gushee
I picked up this book because the issues of sexuality are so much at the center of conversations these days. Gushee has been a leading Evangelical scholar, even serving as a leader amongst Evangelicals in opposition to LBGT issues. This book represents a change of mind of Gushee’s part. I have not yet read it entirely, but I plan to as preparation for a World Made Fresh lecture next November in Atlanta. Gushee will give the keynote address at that Atlanta event, and Ronald Sider will respond.

8.) The Cambridge Companion to Miracles, edited by Graham Twelftree
As I mentioned in my reference to Yong’s work, I have been writing on miracles in recent months. This companion has been helpful. The various references in it ask important questions about what we might consider a miracle. Essayists address miracles in the Bible, in Christian tradition, in other religious traditions, and related issues.

9.) The Wisdom of the Liminal: Evolution and Other Animals in Human Becoming, by Celia Deane-Drummond
Deane-Drummond explores similarities and differences between humans and other animals, especially as they relate to ethics. I was first alerted to this book, because Celia references and engaged some of my own work on love. I find the book helpful in many ways, including emphasizing some of my own views on the subject. We differ, however, in our use and appreciation of Thomas Aquinas.

10.) Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, by F. LeRon Shults
This is one of the most challenging books I have read in some time. It is challenging in its explication of beliefs and delineation of thought. It is also challenging in terms of the conclusions and proposals Shults offers. I found myself often agreeing with his criticisms of some forms of Christianity. But I don’t end up at the same place, believing that alternative visions of Christianity are more plausible. In any case, I recommend this book to those interested in continental philosophy and its engagement with Christianity and Deleuze.

11.) Testing Prayer: Science and Healing, by Candy Gunther-Brown
Brown’s book is a great resource for thinking about the relationship between prayer, science, and arguments about the two. Her main point is that scientists can and should measure the effects of prayer on health. But Brown believes that science cannot prove prayer’s healing power. The work draws especially from Pentecostal traditions and offers strong arguments against typical objections to healing and prayer’s power to generate healing effects.

12.) Mornings with Oswald: Daily Reflections with my Utmost for His Highest, by Donald Minter
This devotional book offers a day by day set of reflections in conversation with scripture, Oswald Chambers, and Minter’s own thoughts about God and life. It is a very practical book that can be used on a daily basis. I am especially pleased that one of my photos graces the book’s cover!

13.) Marks of the Missional Church: Ecclesial Practices for the Sake of the World, by Libby Tedder-Hugus, Keith Schwanz, and Jason Veach
The authors of this book propose a journey toward what they call, “revitalized ecclesiology.” They take the marks of the church — one, holy, catholic, and apostolic — and use those marks to describe what the church is and ought to be. In particular, they are interested in the practices of the church. They use stories from various missional communities to show what the marks of the church might look like as Christians live out the mission of God in today’s world.

This book is a nice collection of some of Griffin’s most important ideas. It offers the reader a nice, overall introduction to Griffin’s views of reality, especially God and society. Those not familiar with Griffin’s ideas would benefit from reading this tome.

15.) Renewal in Love: Living Holy Lives in God’s Good Creation, by Michael Lodahl and April Cordero Maskiewicz
A theologian and biologist come together and explore what Wesleyan Theology might have to say about nature and our care for it. They explore what it means to be made in God’s image and also to image God. The prose is accessible yet compelling. This is the kind of little book I plan to take on some of my backpacking treks.

16.) Me and We: God’s Social Gospel, by Leonard Sweet
This accessible book follows the ongoing quest to think about the relationship of the individual and the community. Sweet uses his typically engaging prose to make an argument for a new way to talk about the restoration of community in relationship. Those who have read Sweet’s books will find this one follows the style of so many powerful books Sweet has previously offered.

17.) The Bible Tells me So: Why Defending Scripture has Made us Unable to Read It, by Peter Enns
This is one of those books that is easy to read, but will likely rock the world of many who pick it up! While many people have appreciated the Bible, and some even defended it against all objections, Enns reads the Bible closely and offers a way of interpreting it that rings true. The Bible’s raw messiness isn’t a problem to be solved, it is an invitation into deeper faith. I can see this book being used in small group discussions and Sunday school classes. But I recommend it only to who are willing to think outside their usual boxes!

18.) Justice in Love, by Nicholas Wolterstorff
In this academic work, Wolterstorff explores the relationship between love and justice. He argues for his own perspective in which he believes love only acts unjustly when that love is malformed. I found myself writing often in the margins of this book. At some points, I think Wolterstorff should rethink his choice of love language. But in general, I am sympathetic to his conclusions.

19.) Renovating Holiness, edited by Josh Broward and Thomas Jay Oord
I saved this as my final book, because it is one I coedited with Josh Broward. This book offers nearly 120 short essays by young leaders in the Church of the Nazarene. These Millennial and Xer Christians explore what holiness might mean in our present setting. I offer a concluding post script that points out what I believe are ten dominant themes in the books essays. You can order it on Amazon or at www.renovatingholiness.com Josh and I are hoping the book fosters new conversations in the Church of the Nazarene about what it means to be holy as God is holy.

]]>http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/2880/feed1Polkinghorne’s Open and Relational Pathhttp://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/polkinghornes-path-to-open-and-relational-thought
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/polkinghornes-path-to-open-and-relational-thought#commentsFri, 16 Jan 2015 03:50:24 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/I’ve been thinking about the various paths Christians take to embracing open and relational theology. John Polkinghorne is among those for whom science led to open and relational themes. For Polkinghorne and many other science and religion scholars, it makes sense to say an open and relational God creates an open and relational universe. My […]

]]>I’ve been thinking about the various paths Christians take to embracing open and relational theology. John Polkinghorne is among those for whom science led to open and relational themes. For Polkinghorne and many other science and religion scholars, it makes sense to say an open and relational God creates an open and relational universe.

My thinking has been sparked by a book project I’ve just completed. The book is tentatively titled, The Uncontrolling Love of God (IVP Academic). I was helped by the Randomness and Providence grant program, headed by Jim Bradley.

John Polkinghorne came to open and relational theology primarily through his studies in science. After earning a PhD in physics at Cambridge University, Polkinghorne began a career in the sciences, writing his first book on particle physics. He worked with foremost scientists of his day and contributed to scientific research, specifically theoretical elementary particle physics. He also served as university lecturer in prominent universities in the United Kingdom.

Around the age of fifty, Polkinghorne decided to leave the laboratory and pursue ordination in the Church of England. “I simply felt that I had done my little bit for particle theory,” he said, “and the time had come to do something else.” In the decades that followed, he served as the dean and chaplain at Trinity Hall, Queens College, Cambridge, in addition to becoming a prolific author. As a leading voice among those who work to reconcile science and theology, he tried to “be two-eyed, looking with both the eye of science and with the eye of religion, and such binocular vision enables [him] to see more than would be possible with either eye on its own.”

Training in physics led Polkinghorne to approach the world in a particular way. As I noted earlier, physics suggests that events in our world are at least partly random and unpredictable. Twentieth-century science saw the death of mechanism as scientists discovered in nature widespread and intrinsic unpredictability. The subatomic level first revealed this, but intrinsic unpredictability also became evident at the everyday level of chaos theory.

Polkinghorne came to believe the randomness in the world tells us something true about the openness of reality itself. This belief stems from his commitment to philosophical realism, which says our observations tell us something true about the world. “Affirming that what we know or cannot know should be treated as a reliable guide to what is the case,” he explains. Or to put it more philosophically, “intelligibility is the reliable guide to ontology.”

Extrapolating from the scientific idea that observation tells us something true and from the theological idea that God works creatively in the world, Polkinghorne came to believe God faces an open future. “If I can act in this way in a world of becoming that is open to its future,” he says, “I see no reason to suppose that God, that world’s creator, cannot also act providentially in some analogous way within the course of its history.”

Consistent with open and relational theology, Polkinghorne says God is not a Cosmic Tyrant who does everything and allows no independent power to creatures. But neither is God a Deistic Spectator who just stands aside and lets it all happen. Instead, “the Christian God is the God of love who neither abandons creatures nor prevents them from being themselves and making themselves.”

The idea that creatures play a role in “making themselves” is partly Polkinghorne’s way of interpreting evolution theologically. “God interacts with creatures,” he says, but God “does not overrule the gift of due independence which they have been given.” Evolution requires contributions from both creatures and the Creator. The created order comes from God’s creating and creatures co-creating.

Polkinghorne is one of many contemporary thinkers who find kenotic theology satisfying. He believes “the creation of a world of real becoming” must have involved “not only a kenosis of divine power but also a kenosis of divine knowledge.” This means “even God does not yet know the unformed future, for it is not yet there to be known.”

God’s lack of foreknowledge signifies no imperfection in God’s nature. It only means God’s relation to time is similar to creation’s relation. “The eternal God, in bringing a temporal world into being,” says Polkinghorne, “has condescended also to engage with the reality of time.” Postulating both eternity and temporality in God’s nature, although in different respects, “has been an important ingredient in much contemporary theology.”

Open relational theologies are well situated to accept the randomness many report in the world. They assume God is not all controlling and creation exhibits genuine causality. They also affirm with most of science that all causation is forward oriented. In open and relational theologies, the forward flow of time is a necessary feature of those things that actually exist. In other words, effects cannot precede their causes.

Polkinghorne has his own version of open and relational thought. But other scholars leading the science-and-theology conversation offer their versions of open and relational thinking. Open and relational scholars do not agree on all of the specifics, of course. The details of their visions of providence, for instance, differ depending on their interests, expertise, inclinations, and primary concerns.

]]>http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/polkinghornes-path-to-open-and-relational-thought/feed0Open and Process Theologies Blur?http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/open-and-process-theologies-blur
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/open-and-process-theologies-blur#commentsWed, 07 Jan 2015 23:02:05 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/Open and process theologies have much in common. But differences also exist. The future of open theology, in my view, will be largely shaped by ongoing conversations between the two theological perspectives. But I expect them to draw closer and their boundaries to blur.

]]>In a previous blog essay, I talked about the future of open theology. I looked briefly at the present state of open theology, as I see it, and speculated about what the future might be.

I’m especially interested in the future relationship between openness and process theologies. In Evangelical circles, openness theologians have primarily argued with or against theologians informed by the Calvinist theological perspective. In those discussions, open theologians have often worked hard to distinguish themselves from process theology on a number of points.

The formal conversation between open theologians and process theologians began not long after the publication of the groundbreaking book, The Openness of God. In 1997, the Center for Process Studies brought together for discussion self-identifying openness thinkers and self-identifying process thinkers. The several days, semi-private meeting was intriguing on many levels, with about 30 participants involved.

I was a graduate student at Claremont during this time, and I was invited to participate. What I remember most from those meetings was the common Christian piety the process “liberals” and openness “evangelicals” shared. Several process thinkers shared personal stories of growing up in Evangelical traditions only to feel that they needed to leave upon finding open and relational ideas attractive.

The following year, in 1998, many openness thinkers returned to Claremont for the Center for Process Studies Whitehead conference. Papers given at the subsequent conference by David Griffin, William Hasker, Richard Rice, Nancy Howell, and David Wheeler comprised the book, Searching for an Adequate God (Eerdmans), edited by Clark Pinnock and John Cobb.

The Future of the Openness-Process Conversation

The authors of The Openness of God have generally sought to distinguish their view from process theology. And many openness thinkers from Evangelical communities continue to make these distinctions today. In fact, there is often immense political pressure in Evangelical communities to avoid being associated with the “process” label.

My hunch, however, is that the future of openness theology will involve blurring of lines between the two theological perspectives. I doubt the open theology and process theology will ever entirely collapse into one perspective. But I expect the overlap and hybridization to increase among those pursuing constructive theology in the general open and relational theological tradition.

Here are five reasons I think the lines between open theology and process theology will continue to blur in future years:

1. Essence? – It is difficult to identify the “essence” of open theology. As a number of internet communities dedicated to openness theology have discovered, significant diversity abounds among self-identified openness thinkers around important issues like Christology, eschatology, ethics, biblical inspiration, and divine power.

The closest thing to an essence in open theology is a rejection of the classical view of divine foreknowledge and insistence that the future is open even for God. Openness thinkers themselves have alternative ways of talking about God’s omniscience and relation to the future. Alan Rhoda and William Hasker, for instance, are both prominent openness philosophers with different views of how to conceptualize God’s omniscience.

Likewise, it is difficult if not impossible to find an essence of process theology. Leading process theologian, John Cobb, insists there is no essence. By contrast, David Griffin identifies ten “core doctrines” of process theology.

Incidentally, very few outside the process camp define process theology in ways that most self-identifying process thinkers define it. When someone says to me, “process theology is unorthodox,” I often ask, “What do you mean by ‘process theology.’” Nine times out of ten, the definition they offer is very different from the definition most self-identifying process theologians define process thought.

2. Cross-Self-Identifying – The second reason I think open and process theology lines will blur pertains to how theologians self-identify. Some self-identifying process theists – such as Philip Clayton and Joseph Bracken – affirm views of original creation (creatio ex nihilo) and divine power that some self-identifying open theologians think distinguish open theology from process thought.

Some self-identifying open and relational theists affirm views of original creation and divine power that some process theologians think characterize process theology. Consequently, on these key issues, the boundaries already blur.

3. Nimble and Open – The third reason I think the lines will blur between open and process theology is probably more of a recommendation. Christian history suggests that those who make it their goal to define and then protect the essence of a view often find their view to lose influence. Whitehead is right when he says the pure conservative is fighting against the essence of the universe.

Protecting and promulgating a concise set of propositions can be effective in the short term and with those whose basic orientation is to conserve. But a theological tradition is better served to promote a few basic intuitions that might capture the imaginations of young and emerging theologians who are creative, passionate, intelligent, and activist-minded. Vital theological traditions are nimble and open. I think Openness of God author, David Basinger is wise when he says he has “no interest in trying to preserve a set of core essential openness beliefs.”

4. Post-Evangelicalism – The fourth reason I think open theology and process theologies will blur pertains to a phenomenon many call “post-evangelicalism.” A shrinking number of young Christians raised in the Evangelical tradition want to self-identify as Evangelicals. They still love Jesus and still think theology and the Church are important. But their reluctance to self-identify as Evangelical stems for a variety of social, cultural, and political reasons.

Post-evangelicals are more open to blurring boundaries, pushing envelopes, and coloring beyond the standard Evangelically authorized lines. Many are dissatisfied with the Evangelical status quo. Many gravitate toward openness and process thinking and don’t see the need to distinguish the two sharply.

5. Theodicy – The final reason I think open theology and process theologies will blur pertains to a substantive issue: theodicy. Although the theodicy offered by the authors of The Openness of God sounds far better than conventional theodicies claiming God foreordained and foreknew evil, many openness thinkers admit their view doesn’t resolve the problem of evil like process theology can.

William Hasker, David Basinger, John Sanders, Greg Boyd, and Richard Rice have done work admirable in this area. John Sanders’s book, The God Who Risks has been especially influential. But they admit that their view of God’s power cannot solve the problem entirely.

The theodicy issue has been the focus of some of my own work, and I’ve offered a solution I call “essential kenosis.” I offer this solution based upon understanding God’s power in light of God’s love in my books, The Nature of Love (Chalice) and Defining Love (Brazos). An even fuller defense of the essential kenosis theodicy in light of randomness and evil comes in my forthcoming book, The Uncontrolling Love of God (IVP Academic). I also explain it in my contribution to the forthcoming God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views book on theodicy (IVP; Chad Meister and Jamie Dew, eds.)

Conclusion

Of course, I could be completely wrong about all that I have said in this essay and the previous one.

In fact, that’s one strength of open and process theologies: they fit our experiences of reality, including the experience of being wrong about our predictions about what might occur. But even false predictions can become resources God might use when calling us into our moment-by-moment, open and relational existence.

May God bless us all – no matter how we self-identify – as we seek to follow the Apostle Paul’s admonition to imitate God, as beloved children, and live a life of love as Christ loved us… (Eph 5:1)

]]>http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/open-and-process-theologies-blur/feed2The Future of Open Theologyhttp://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the-future-of-open-theology
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the-future-of-open-theology#commentsFri, 02 Jan 2015 19:09:37 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/Open theology has matured in many ways since the ground-breading publication of The Openness of God book twenty years ago. I’ve been thinking about what the next twenty years might be for open theology.

]]>Open theology has matured in many ways since the ground-breading publication of The Openness of God book twenty years ago. I’ve been thinking about what the next twenty years might be for open theology.

At an Open and Relational Theologies group session at the recent American Academy of Religion meeting, I joined three of the authors of The Openness of God for reflection on the book’s impact. It seemed like the right time to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the book’s publication.

I am deeply grateful to the five authors of The Openness of God: David Basinger, William Hasker, Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, and John Sanders. The book has been powerful in my own life and in the lives of many Christians like me who were not satisfied with what Clark Pinnock called “conventional” theism.

I encountered the book not long after it was published in 1994. It confirmed many of my own intuitions, as one raised in the Arminian/Wesleyan/Holiness tradition. Since reading the book, I’ve encountered many others who after reading it said, “That’s something like what I’ve been thinking, but I thought I was the only one!”

Openness writers expressed their ideas in biblical language typical of the Christian tradition in general and my own evangelical-Wesleyan tradition in particular. And as Dave Basinger has said, The Openness of God created more space for Evangelicals like me to deny classic views of God’s foreknowledge.

Now that 20 years have passed, I’ve been thinking about the future of open theology. Of course, open and relational theists like me who think the future is not yet knowable by God should be the first to admit we don’t know what the future will be! But I want to look at the present state of open theology, as I see it, and speculate about what the future might be.

Philosophy

Open theology has made an impact in a variety of academic disciplines, schools of thought, and ways of thinking. Some of its greatest success has been in analytic philosophy circles. Thanks to the efforts of many, including two of The Openness of God authors, David Basinger and Bill Hasker, it is common for an openist philosopher to be given hearing at philosophy of religion conferences. Some do not specifically self-identify as openist philosophers, but their views of God’s relation to time and foreknowledge place them in the openist camp.

In the future, I speculate that openness ideas will continue to expand in analytic philosopher circles but grow more rapidly among theistic philosophers of religion captivated by Continentalist philosophy. Such philosophers may not embrace the label “openist” philosopher, but the fundamental drive of Continentalist philosophy, as I see it, is overturning oppressive structures, systems, and ideas. An open view fits naturally with such liberating concerns, because liberationist philosophies seem to presuppose agency, potential novelty, a measure of iconoclasm, and forward movement though time.

Liberation

Speaking of liberation, open theology seems to have enjoyed less influence among the wide swath of theological perspectives I put under the general category of liberationist theologies. Whether such theologies have gender, ethnic, or political concerns, I know only a few self-identifying openness theologians thinking through openness implications for liberationist theologies.

I think this lack of influence has more to do with the sociological and cultural positions of prominent opennist thinkers thus far and not anything inherent in liberation theology. But TC Moore is right when he talks about Open theology’s need for greater ethnic, cultural, and gender diversity.

My hunch is that the future of openness theology will be strongly influenced by liberation theologians of various types. I think this in part because of the inherent openness intuitions of liberationist thinking. I also think openness thinking will expand because of blossoming interest in liberationist theologies among peoples of diverse cultural, sexual, and political orientations.

Science

The open view of God has a strong representation in the contemporary science and theology discussion. As Bethany Sollereder has noted, openness advocates in the UK like John Polkinghorne, Keith Ward, and Arthur Peacocke are known for their denial of classical divine foreknowledge. In the U.S., prominent scholars of science and religion such as Philip Clayton, Ian Barbour, John Haught, Nancy Howell, and others deny classical foreknowledge and embrace the basic theology advanced by the Openness of God authors.

In 2007 and 2008, I co-led with Clark Pinnock and Karl Giberson some conferences on science and open theology. These events brought together for the first time many American openness thinkers with the intent was to think about openness categories in relation to science. Two books were published as a result.
What struck me most was the eagerness of openness thinkers to engage scientific issues and the general scientific endeavor. Openness theology has implicit and explicit appreciation of empiricism and epistemological realism, which I think makes open theology a natural conversation partner with contemporary sciences.

Ethics

Does open theology incline one toward a particular stance on ethics? I think it does, although I know very few who have argued this carefully.

In my view, love will be at the center of an openness ethic. So too will be the kind of moral responsibility that only comes when one believes creaturely action has genuine influence upon all others and God. An openness ethic will encourage empathy, vulnerability, listening, and suffering love.

A few have begun to ask what Openness Theology might contribute to the global crisis of our time: climate change. Sharon Harvey’s work comes to mind, as does Michael Lodahl’s. But much more must be done, at least by Evangelically-oriented open theologians.

Grassroots

I think the future of open theology will be largely shaped by those at the grass roots. General features of open theology resonate deeply with laity and pastors. The conversations occurring on the internet and in local churches give me great hope that open theology will continue spread. We must continue to ponder how we might foster, support, and encourage this aspect of open theology.

A few year ago, I joined Tom Belt and TC Moore to host the first Open Theology for the Church conference at Gregory Boyd’s church outside Minneapolis. The eagerness of those attending was palpable, as they expressed their renewed sense of passion for God and Christian living. I hope similar events will be held in the future.

As I think about the future of Open theology, I’m also drawn to reflect on its relationship with Process theology. I’ll focus an entire blog to my thoughts on that relationship in the future.

Conclusion

The future is bright for open and relational theologies. Momentum is strong, and the possibilities are diverse. I pray that those of us persuaded by this general view of reality will follow God’s wise leading into the open future.

]]>http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the-future-of-open-theology/feed3Does it Make Sense to Believe in Miracles?http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/does_it_make_sense_to_believe_in_miracles
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/does_it_make_sense_to_believe_in_miracles#commentsFri, 05 Dec 2014 12:58:46 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/does_it_make_sense_to_believe_in_miraclesIn the final chapter of my current book on providence, I address the issue of miracles. This book project is funded as part of a larger grant I received to explore what it means to believe God acts providentially in a world of randomness. Much of my discussion in this last chapter revolves around various […]

]]>In the final chapter of my current book on providence, I address the issue of miracles. This book project is funded as part of a larger grant I received to explore what it means to believe God acts providentially in a world of randomness.

Much of my discussion in this last chapter revolves around various reasons many people today reject miracles. A major part of the problem is the definition given miracles.

It has become common in the past few centuries (since David Hume) to define miracles as supernatural violations of the laws of nature or divine interventions. But these definition are laden with problems.

1. The category of “laws of nature” is ill-defined and unnecessary. Besides those who witness miracles – whether the miracles reported in the Bible or witnessed today – rarely if ever say, “Wow! I just observed a law of nature violated!”

2. The idea of “intervention” suggests that God must come to a closed system of nature from the outside. But Christians ought to believe God is omnipresent. And that means God is always already present to the natural world, never needing to “inter–vene.”

3. The idea of “supernatural” leads implicitly to views in which God is thought to coerce, override, interfere, overpower, or in some way totally control a creature or situation. But if God has that kind of coercive power, the problem of evil is insuperable.

I believe in miracles. I don’t think they are simply “in the mind of the religious believer.” I think miracles are objective events that occur in the world.

Of course, I don’t think all claims about miracles are legitimate. Some are hoaxes, wishful thinking, the effects of hysteria, or coincidences. But I do think some miracles actually occur, and those of us who believe in God need to account for them if we are to witness well to hope that we have in God.

Defining Miracles

In the concluding chapter of my current book on providence, I offer this definition of a miracle: a miracle is an unexpected and good event that occurs through God’s special action in relation to creation. This definition has three essential elements. Miracles 1) are unexpected events, 2) are good events, 3) involve God’s special action in relation to creation.

The signs and wonders we read about in the Bible, in history, or encounter today are noteworthy, in part, because they are surprising. They are unusual or extraordinary. As Augustine put it, a miracle is an “unusual” event “beyond the expectation or ability of the one who marvels at it.”

Some unexpected events leave us awestruck and impressed by the power they display. But these occurrences are not positive, loving, or good. They cause harm, destruction, or evil. Sheer power is not miraculous, and some awe-filled events are awful.

We should reserve “miracle” to describe unexpected events, whether powerful or not, that we believe promote well-being in some way. Miracles are beneficial. Miracles are events we deem good.

In addition to being unexpected and good, miracles involve special divine action. I believe that the special divine action that makes miracles possible occurs when God provides new possibilities, forms, structures, or ways of being to creatures. These gifts for the miraculous may reflect dramatic or awesome ways of existing should they be embodied or incorporated.

Miracles are possible when God provides good and unexpected forms of existence. God sometimes desires well-being through diverse forms and multifarious dimensions.

Of course, I go into all of these issues in much more detail in my book. I’m sending the completed book manuscript to Intervarsity Academic Press before Christmas. I’ve signed a contract, and I expect the book to be available in the fall of 2015.

If you have some comments on miracles that you think I should consider before submitting the manuscript, I’d love to hear from you. If I really like your comment, I’ll include your name in a footnote or in the book’s acknowledgement section!

]]>http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/does_it_make_sense_to_believe_in_miracles/feed26Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivalshttp://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/creatio_ex_nihilo_and_new_rivals
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/creatio_ex_nihilo_and_new_rivals#commentsFri, 26 Sep 2014 20:35:33 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/creatio_ex_nihilo_and_new_rivalsRoutledge sent copies yesterday of a new book I edited, Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals. It explores current thinking about creation out of nothing, and several essays propose alternative theories of creation.

]]>Routledge sent copies yesterday of a new book I edited, Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals. It explores current thinking about creation out of nothing, and several essays propose alternative theories of creation.

Of course, humans have long wondered about the origin of the universe. And such questions are especially alive today as physicists offer metaphysical theories to account for the emergence of creation.

Some contributors to this book explore new reasons creatio ex nihilo should continue to be embraced today. But other contributors question the viability of creation from nothing and offer alternative initial creation options in its place. These new alternatives explore a variety of options in light of recent scientific work, new biblical scholarship, and both new and old theological traditions.

I especially want to thank those who contributed essays to the book, which include Philip Clayton, Catherine Keller, Michael Lodahl, Richard Rice, Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Marit Trelstad, Eric Vail, Stephen Webb, and Michael Zbaraschuk. I also contributed an essay.

]]>http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/creatio_ex_nihilo_and_new_rivals/feed9Pannenberg Dies; An Interviewhttp://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/pannenberg_dies_an_interview
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/pannenberg_dies_an_interview#commentsMon, 08 Sep 2014 20:38:17 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/pannenberg_dies_an_interviewOne of the most influential theologians in the latter half of the 20th century, Wolfhart Pannenberg, has died. I sat down with Pannenberg a decade or so ago to talk about his life and thought. For the first time in print, here's my full-length interview with him.

]]>One of the most influential theologians in the latter half of the 20th century, Wolfhart Pannenberg, has died. I sat down with Pannenberg a decade or so ago to talk about his life and thought. For the first time in print, here’s my full-length interview with him.

I was a joy to sit and talk shop — theology — with such a brilliant man. As the interview below indicates, I asked about his influences and his thoughts about the future of theology.

But I also pressed him — and sometimes disagreed with him — on some of his key theological ideas. In the end, I left our 3-hour conversation with a deeper sense of appreciation for him and his work. But I also left our pleasant chat with a clearer sense on those topics where we differ.

A portion of this interview was published not long after I sat down with Pannenberg. But I don’t believe the full interview has ever been made available. Upon hearing of his death, I wondered why I had waited so long to put it in print somewhere!

I explored a wide range of topics — science, eschatology, Polkinghorne, resurrection, process theology, etc. — in my interview. The result is a long narrative! Because of the diversity of topics and the length, I’ve bolded my questions in the text below. I’m expecting readers to skp to questions they find most interesting.

The Interview

Thomas Jay Oord: As you enter the latter stages of your career, you’ve probably reflected some on your contributions as a scholar. What experiences in your childhood or youth do you now see as particularly influential in shaping these contributions?

Wolfhart Pannenberg: As you may know, I was not raised in a Christian family. Although I was baptized as a child, I did not have a Christian education.

But in 1945, I had a visionary experience at the occasion of a sunset. Light flooded all around and through myself, and I don’t know where I was or how long it lasted. It may have lasted for an eternity. Afterwards, I found myself a humble human being and was just puzzled.

I thought I had to come to terms with that event and what it really meant to me. It happened on the sixth of January, 1945. I didn’t know at the time that the sixth of January is the feast of Christ’s glorification of epiphany. Later on, I thought it was significant that it was on this particular day. I became, so to speak, metaphysically awakened. But I didn’t yet know the purpose of this awakening.

I had read from Nietzsche and Kant before I was sixteen — even before I had read the first line of the Bible. By my reading of Nietzsche, I thought that I was perfectly informed about what I should think about Christianity. But I met some people who didn’t fit in that specter of guilt or obsessed parrotism. I met some Christians who seemed to be quite jolly and joyous human beings, and I was puzzled as to how that could be so. This contributed to my decision to find out about Christianity by studying theology.

So, I started studying theology in 1945. I was increasingly attracted to the content of the Christian message and the profound nature of Christian doctrine. I soon came to the conclusion that what happened to me on the sixth of January, 1945 was really the light of Christ.

Oord: Much has been made of Karl Barth and Gerhard von Rad’s influence upon your theology. On what areas of your thought do you see them as having the greatest influence?

Pannenberg: Karl Barth was a towering figure in theology right after the war. In my early years as a student, I read through all the volumes of his Church Dogmatics. In 1950, I went to Basel to hear his lectures. I got some very good recommendations from one of Barth’s former students, so I was received by Karl Barth very personally and invited to his home. I was impressed by his person and by his teaching.

But, in the second semester I spent at Basel, there was a small group that would come together in Barth’s home to discuss some of his thoughts. We discussed one of his smaller works called, The Community of Christians and the State. There he developed some analogical reasoning, including some conclusions for politics from Christology.

One of these conclusions was that there should be no secret diplomacy as a consequence of our belief that Christ is alive. I didn’t find this particularly persuasive. I thought that, perhaps, the world of politics would profit from some more secret diplomacy. So, I criticized Karl Barth. Karl Barth just didn’t like criticism. And, so, my relationship with Karl Barth got considerably cooler.

But, I always remained impressed by his emphasis that God has to come first in theology, and that the same should be said about Jesus Christ. God, as revealed as Jesus Christ, comes first and should not be replaced by anything else. So, to this extent, I am still influenced by Karl Barth.

Now to von Rad. One of the weaknesses of Karl Barth was that Barth didn’t have a real appreciation of Biblical exegesis, especially critical exegesis. Of course, he used the scripture quite a bit. But he had a very personal way of interpreting the Bible. I found by involving myself in historical critical exegesis of biblical writings that this wouldn’t do. Theology should be based on the scriptures, of course, but it should be based upon a reading of the scriptures through historical interpretation. After all, the scriptures are historical documents, notwithstanding their being the word of God. Even that has to be settled upon their content as historical documents.

I was most impressed by Gerhard von Rad’s approach, because he interprets the scriptures, not only as a historian, but as a theologian. He was able to speak of the stories of the Old Testament as if they were about real life — much more real than the secular life that we experience otherwise. The Old Testament has become an experience of reality for me through the teachings of Gerhard von Rad. His thesis, that God is acting with Israel and with all humanity in history and that history is constituted by the acts of God, has influenced me more than any other thing that I learned as a student.

Oord: Early in your career, it was not uncommon for scholars to point out similarities between your thought and the process thought of people such as John Cobb and Schubert Ogden. This practice is much less common today. Were you misunderstood early on, or have your views changed?

Pannenberg: I think this affinity to process thought, which was propelled by some of my American friends, was due to the fact that I emphasized history as the field of God’s revelation and even as belonging to God himself.

We cannot speak about God’s nature by disregarding God’s action. God’s nature and God’s action have to be kept together. We know about God’s nature only through God’s action in history. My understanding of God as involved in the history of humanity was considered to have some relationship to process concerns. To this extent, this was true.

I also had to concern myself with the philosophy of Whitehead when I came to Chicago in 1963. This was my first experience in the United States as somebody who is expected to teach theology. At Chicago, you couldn’t survive intellectually at that time without having read everything of Whitehead.

I was greatly impressed by Whitehead, but I was also critical of Whitehead. I never understood how my dear friend, John Cobb, could reconcile Whitehead’s philosophy with a Christian doctrine of creation. After all, Whitehead explicitly denies that his philosophical God is the Creator of the world. He sees God and world in correspondence. I believe that everything comes from God in such a way that God could have been God without creating the world. This is not something that Whitehead could have accepted. Thus, I have always had some reservations with regard to Whiteheadian philosophy.

Of course, process thought is much broader than Whitehead. I often asked my friend John Cobb why the process thinkers should be so exclusively focused on Whitehead while disregarding, and even not knowing about, Henri Bergson and Samuel Alexander. These are two great process thinkers before Whitehead who also offer alternative views in process thought. There should be some discussion about what one should prefer within the camp of process thought. I also would like to see process thought in the greater horizon of the development of metaphysical issues in modern philosophy – especially the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries.

Oord: Many scholars were impressed by your early arguments concerning the actual historical resurrection of Jesus. In what ways have your views on that issue changed over the years?

Pannenberg: There was no reason to change my views, actually. I haven’t seen alternative explanations with regards to the Christian Easter tradition that would not be less plausible than the biblical accounts themselves.

I used to tell my students that you have to study the biblical texts critically, as you study other historical documents. But, please, be also critical of the critics. There are many students who take their teacher’s authority, especially when they are so bold and critical with regards to the biblical texts. So, I prefer to be critical of the critics. Sometimes, alternative reconstructions are almost ridiculous.

I never understood how, at Jerusalem, the place of Jesus crucifixion, a Christian congregation could be established a few weeks after that event, proclaiming his resurrection, without firmly and truly being assured about the fact that the tomb was empty. Of course, critics have different explanations for that fact. But, with regard to the tomb of Jesus being empty, the Christian proclamation couldn’t have persisted one day in Jerusalem. I often wonder why there are so many scholars whose imagination doesn’t suggest to them that this would be possible.

Oord: Early in your career, you insisted on the importance of doing theology against the background of the history of religions. How do you reconcile the universal revelation of God in Christ with a world in which India, after 2000 years, remains largely Hindu and likely will remain so for some time.

Pannenberg: Well, the Christian affirmation of the relation between God and Jesus Christ is constituted by anticipation of the final outcome of all history. This is anticipation of what theologians call, “eschatology,” i.e., the last future, when God’s kingdom will be definitively realized and Christ will come again and all the dead will raise. This was anticipated in the resurrection of Christ, according to the early Christian proclamation. We have a claim to universal revelation, but this claim to will be finally vindicated only in the future. Until that happens, there is room for different opinions, and some people think otherwise.

Oord: Some contemporary theologians, adopting the label “narrative theologians,” emphasize the church as the primary source of and audience for the stories of theology, thereby minimizing theology’s place in public endeavor. What role should public theology have today?

Pannenberg: Let me first comment on the concept of “narrative theology.” The biblical stories are narrative. But you have many kinds of narration, of narrative types, and some of the biblical narratives make historical claims. To speak of narratives without mentioning that means to bypass these historical claims. It seems awkward to some theologians to raise these truth questions that are connected to the Christian message. This is replaced by taking recourse to the role of the church, the social context of the Christian message, and so on.

I think that, if Christianity had not dealt with truth questions, Christianity would never have become a world religion. Christianity developed a universal mission to all human beings, because it raised universal truth claims concerning the God of Israel as Creator of the world and as manifest in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christianity has to continue in defending these universal truth claims that have been essential for Christianity and especially Christian missions from the very beginning.

Oord: One could interpret volume three of your systematic theology as a more Protestant (read “individualistic”) view of the church than a Catholic (read “communitarian”) view. Would this be a fair reading?

Pannenberg: This might be a Roman Catholic reading. My Protestant critics say otherwise — that I place far too much importance on the concept of the church. But Christian theology has to keep these two aspects together.

The church is indispensable — not only important — but indispensable, because the tradition of the faith and the ongoing proclamation of the gospel to new generations takes place only in the church. The church is commissioned with this responsibility.

But the individual believer is not completely dependent upon the authority of the church and its ministry. By the service of the church’s proclamation, the believer is led into an immediate relationship with the God that is proclaimed in the Christian gospel. That immediate relationship is what we enjoy in faith.

The mediating role of the church is indispensable, but, still, each faithful Christian believer should have a relationship of immediacy with God, sharing in Jesus own relationship with the father. I think this is Christian mysticism that we share in the inner Trinitarian communion of the Son with the Father. Paul himself said so in Romans chapter eight.

So, this concern for immediacy is very important, but it is not an alternative to the mediation of the gospel through the services and institutions of the church. The individual Christian believer also cannot exist without communion with the other Christians who share the same body of Christ in receiving his sacraments.

Oord: What does it mean to say, “God is love?” And, is God free not to love?

Pannenberg: This central affirmation of the Bible in the Johannine letters is often misunderstood today. It is thought, “We know what love is, and God has to be loving. Otherwise, we wouldn’t accept him.” This is a great mistake.

God, first of all, is the mystery that constitutes everything, surrounds us from all sides, and surpasses understanding. Especially in experience, we can’t understand this God who surpasses our understanding.

The Bible is full of sentences that speak of God’s wrath and judgment. Why do people tend to overlook that fact? The judgment of God on human injustice is more evident than the love of God. The prophets of the Old Testament have expressed this. The Jewish people had to wrestle with this. This is not a thing of the past, it continues throughout time, through all of history.

It was not a matter of fact statement when Jesus proclaims this God to be the loving Father. It was, rather, a paradox. It is the center of Jesus’ message that God’s true nature, the true nature of this mystery that surrounds our lives, is Fatherly love.

This was closely connected with his proclamation of the imminent kingdom of God that opens up to every believer, even now, the presence of God, which means serving for all eternity. This was what was meant when Jesus spoke of God’s love. We should learn about love from the Bible. We shouldn’t turn the Bible around into what we think is love.

Oord: If the kingdom of God has been universally and definitively established, as you’ve argued, why does evil still persist as the most embarrassing reality the Christian gospel confronts?

Pannenberg: In Jesus’ message, the kingdom was, first of all, future. It is an immanent future, in the sense of urgency, that makes everything else a secondary concern. That was the point of Jesus’ message.

But the starting point isn’t “the kingdom is future.” Jesus also said, in a small number of words, that this future becomes already present where God is accepted as King in the heart of the believer. When the message of the kingdom is accepted, God becomes King in the heart of the believer now. But God is not King in the broad reality of the world, of political institutions, of social structures, and so on. This hasn’t changed, basically, since the time of Jesus’ teaching.

Therefore, we still have evil persisting as an embarrassing reality. We expect that, finally, evil will be overcome by the fulfillment of God’s kingdom, the fulfillment of human history, the second coming of Christ, and the day of the last judgment.

Oord: How do you correlate divinely initiated and sanctioned violence in the Old Testament with the nonviolence of Jesus in the New Testament? Is God violent?

Pannenberg: Like I said before, God is not that meekly love that many people say He should be. In the Old Testament, God is one who elected Israel, and this did not always include peaceful relationship with other people. We see, at present, what the problems are in that respect. That God elected Israel and that this would entail violence in relation to other nations was not the final aim of all of God’s actions. But God had elected Israel to become a witness of God’s will to righteousness for all human beings. Violence is not the last word. The last word of God will be the reconciliation and love.

Looking at our present world, it is difficult to understand that this is so. This is an experience that should prompt us, again and again, to adore the mystery of God that surpasses our understanding. Following Jesus, we should believe against the experiences that occur. We should believe that, finally, God will be the God of reconciliation and love. It will be finally evident that this is so.

Oord: Given your doctrine of eternity, to what extent is God essentially affected by historical occurrences? Does it just seem to us that God is affected by history? Or is God essentially affected by what occurs?

Pannenberg: I emphasize that eternity is not only the opposition to time, but it comprises the wholeness of life as possessed in one present that is not going away. Eternity comprises time, but it is distinct from time. In the course of temporal events, some are already passed, they are no more, and some are not yet. In eternity, the whole of life is possessed in one present that is not to be passed over by anything else.

Given this view of eternity, it is not difficult to understand that the eternal God also is engaged in the temporal process. God didn’t have to create a world. But, after He decided to create a world, He was bound to that decision. Given the fact that the created world exists, God’s divine nature is bound up with His kingdom over this world. Therefore, the final outcome of the processes of this world is constitutive in our experience for the fact that the God we believe in really is the eternal God and creator of the world.

If the final completion of the kingdom of God did not occur, we would have been in error for believing in this God. But from the perspective of the eternal God Himself, that is not a problem! From the perspective of the eternal God, the reality of the world has to be considered as one process which is complete from the end.

Oord: You have long sought to bring theology and science into a mutually illuminating conversation. How would you assess the current state of that conversation?

Pannenberg: I was involved in these conversations since the 50’s and 60’s in Germany. At that time, there was an important center of such a conversation with some of the leading German physicists, like Heisenberg and von Weiszacker, were involved.

Since that time, the center of these conversations has moved to this country. America, with centers of dialogue between science and theology at Berkeley, Chicago, Princeton, and also in other places, is now the center of the whole movement that brings science and religion, but especially science and Christian theology, closer together.

Oord: Your eschatological vision of the God of the Future has influenced several leaders in the science and religion dialogue. Does this surprise you? Or is this something that you would expect?

Pannenberg: When you write something, especially if you write something that is not common knowledge and opinion before you publish it, you can never expect that people will believe it! So, to that extent I am rather surprised that I didn’t receive rejection only but received some positive response.

Oord: What do you view as the assets and liabilities of John Polkinghorne’s theology of science?

Pannenberg: I think John Polkinghorne is a noted physicist and a remarkable person. His turning, as a physicist, to theology, not only in terms of personal interest but becoming a priest of the Anglican church, is remarkable. He is very serious in his determination to bring science and theology together.

The problem with Polkinghorne is that he has no philosophical education. He admits that. It is difficult to do theology without philosophy. In all the history of Christian theology, the close cooperation between philosophy and theology — though there were often tensions between the two — has been essential. Without that, Christian theology could never have made its universal claims concerning God. Justifying these universal claims should not start with science, as it sometimes does in our day. Justifying universal claims started with philosophy, and it continues with philosophy. The dialogue between science and theology is possible only on the basis of philosophy. Therefore, it is regrettable that John Polkinghorne, for all his commitment to the dialogue between theology and science, has no appropriate philosophical education.

Oord: Your theology has been described as interdisciplinary. Do you find this description accurate?

Pannenberg: Because God is the creator of everything and will be the redeemer of everything, theology has to be concerned with everything. This doesn’t make theology interdisciplinary in a superficial sense. It is interdisciplinary because theology is concerned with only one thing, and that is God.

Oord: Do recent developments in biology, especially the prospect of human cloning, pose new challenges to a Christian understanding of the human person as laid out, for example, in your Anthropology in Theological Perspective?

Pannenberg: There are serious reasons against allowing the cloning of human beings. Nevertheless, it is a question of limited importance, because the identity of the human person is constituted by the unique life history of each individual person, starting only from his or her birth. This would not change even by the cloning of human beings.

We have the example of identical twins who have the same genetic constitution. But even those persons have different life experiences. They are different individuals because of their different life history. This must also apply to individuals that were produced through cloning. Therefore, the significance of cloning is limited concerning the concept of the human person. There would still be a uniqueness of each human person with regard to the life history that constitutes this or another person’s identity.

Oord: Is there any analogy between (1) the divine field of relations in Trinity and (2) various physical fields found in natural science, for example, the electromagnetic field?

Pannenberg: There is an analogy, certainly, but no identity. I always emphasize this. There are some anxieties, expressed by physicists as well as theologians, that I would confound physics and theology in applying the field concept to theology by appropriating field theory for the language of theology. But I am not identifying the divine reality as a field concept with the fields as described by physics. That would amount to idolatry.

God as a Creator is working in His creation through His creatures. This doesn’t distract from the immediacy of the relationship between the Creator and His creatures. God always used creatures to bring about other things.

Think of the function of the earth in the first part of Genesis. The earth is addressed by God to assist in His act of creation. First, the earth is addressed to bring about vegetation. So we may wonder, “How can the earth, an inorganic reality, bring about an organic reality, vegetation, and then bring about the self organization of organisms from inorganic materials?” Yet, this is the Christian creation story.

The second address of the earth is even bolder than that! God addresses the earth to bring about animals. And the text means higher animals. Such boldness does not really characterize even Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin wouldn’t have dreamed to have higher animals spring immediately from the earth, from inorganic matter. Darwin is much more moderate than that. In criticizing the doctrine of evolution, our creationist friends among Christian theologians should read their Bibles more closely.

Oord: Would you call yourself a theistic evolutionist?

Pannenberg: I would call myself a Trinitarian evolutionist.

Oord: Toward what direction would you like to see the science and religion dialogue go?

Pannenberg: Ernan McMullin, the philosopher from Notre Dame, whom I highly regard for his contribution to the science and theology dialogue, said that we should look for consonance, not for mutual support, but for consonance. Consonance also means support, because, if there were no consonance with the description of the reality of our world, then our faith in creation would become empty. That would endanger our faith in God. Our faith in God is essentially founded in the notion that He is the creator of everything, and that He has power over everything. God would not have this power if He were not the creator of everything.

The consonance between science and theology, in some way, also supports the Christian affirmations — but not in the sense that theology should be modeled after scientific findings, efforts, and so on. Theology moves on its own level of method. This is what McMullin had in mind, and I am in complete agreement with him here. I would hope that there would be increasing consonance between science and theology.

For many scientists, there is already too much consonance because of the Big Bang cosmology of science. Many scientists of a secularist or atheist persuasion have felt that this is too close to theology, and that they should develop alternative theories. If the world had a beginning that was almost like creation, they think that’s terrible. But the Big Bang theory is a standard theory of scientific cosmology, and here there is a degree of consonance. As McMullin said, the Big Bang theory doesn’t prove the existence of God as a creator. In that sense, it doesn’t support theology. But it does describe the universe in such a way that theologians should expect from science if there is a Creator. I think that’s a good example.

The Creator is always interfering with the process of the world, however, and this has to be clarified to a greater degree than it has been generally. I used to discuss this under the title of the contingency of events as a medium of God’s actions in the world. We have to reach more agreement on this in the dialogue between theology and science.

And there is the question of the future of the universe, which is considered quite differently in theology than in science. A degree of exception to this difference is found in the cosmology of my friend, Frank Tippler, from New Orleans. Tippler is not readily accepted by most of his scientist colleagues, and his views are not completely acceptable to the theologian either. But I admire his daring proposition concerning the future of the universe as a beginning of the dialogue between scientists and theologians about the future of the universe. This is a most difficult area, but we can hope that there will be more progress in the future.

Oord: Figuring prominently in your earlier work is the statement that the future possesses an ontological priority, and, in a limited but important sense, God does not yet exist. In your later years, your theology remains concerned with the future, but you seem to express more interest in what it means for God to be present here and now. Would you still say with the same energy what you once said, namely, that there is an ontological priority of the future, and that, in a limited but important sense, God does not yet exist?

Pannenberg: I always affirm that God does exist at present as He did in eternity. If God, in the definitive sense, did not yet exist, then how could He be the eternal God?

The ontological priority of the future means two things. First of all, events occur contingently. This is what we have to learn from quantum physics. The basic information of quantum physics is the contingency of all events. This also applies on a macrophysical level and has now become more commonly accepted by the development of chaos theory. All processes in history, which are basically irreversible, are characterized by contingency.

Contingency is not opposed to the application of natural law. The sequence of contingent events shows degrees of uniformity. This uniformity is the object of the description of nature by natural laws. So descriptions of natural laws and the basic contingency of natural events are not opposed to each other.

The laws themselves – all the laws of mathematical formulas having application in nature — emerge from the irreversible process of the universe. Sometimes physicists believe the laws of nature to be eternal. This belief is not as prevalent, but some still hold to it. The source of contingency is not the past, that’s the very notion of contingency. Contingent events can form an unknown future to encounter.

Therefore, the ontological priority of the future means, in the first place, that the future is a source of contingent events. You need this idea if you do not isolate the particular contingent events. If you look at the fact that all new contingent events occur in the perspective of the wholeness of the universe, the future is a source of contingency.

The future is also the source of possible completion of the identity of creatures. This is assisted by the efficacy of natural laws. But natural laws do not exhaust this issue, because reality is basically historical. There is an open future. So the achievement of wholeness — the final achievement of the identity of creatures — is dependent on the future. As Plotinus said, it is the wholeness of life that God enjoys in His eternity that is longed for by creatures. They strive for their wholeness, for their identity.

I referred to the theological side of this issue when I said that, when God created the world, He took a risk. He could not be the eternal God and Creator without His kingdom being established in this world. Therefore, we say that, in the eschatological future, it will be established that the God in whom we believe really is the King of the universe and the eternal God and Creator of the world. Because God looks at His creation from the point of view of its final fulfillment, this is already settled. But, from the perspective of the world, this is not settled.

Oord: How does the future affect the present determinatively? And, is that future already determined?

Pannenberg: We have to be very careful in discussing this issue. Determinism, as it has been discussed in philosophy and theology in past centuries, is concerned with determination from the past by some past state of affairs or by some past decisions that anticipate the future and determine it. If some past decisions or some past conditions in the development of the universe would completely determine the further process of the universe, we would have a completely deterministic system of nature.

The determination or, let’s say, the influence of the future in the course of the history is of a different kind. It doesn’t make sense to talk about determinism in the way that we talk about determinism of the influence of past influences and conditions that will come later.

Concerning the question whether the future is already determinate, this is certainly true with regard to God’s eternity. But it is true with regard to the final future of this world, because the eternal God is the final future of this world. One should not say that the future is already determinate at some point at the beginning of the process of the world, because that would do away with the concept of eternity.

Some people envision the Creator standing at the beginning of the world and making plans for the future of the world’s history. That is a conception that forgets about the eternity of God. It looks upon God as if He were a human being looking ahead to a future that is different from Himself and making plans for influencing that future. God has no need of doing that, because He is eternal.

Oord: One scholar understands your future God as part of an Hegelian metaphysics, in which all is ultimately enveloped in God. Is this characterization accurate?

Pannenberg: In some areas of discussion, and maybe especially in this country, there is a lot of mythology concerning Hegel. It is almost comparable to the mythology concerning Christianity in a secularized world: the less you know about it, the more your prejudices have free rein.

There is no Future God in Hegel. The future was not an important part of Hegel’s philosophy, and that is one of the serious limitations of Hegel’s thought. When I talk about God as the power of the future, that is certainly not Hegelian influence on my thought!

Oord: Some have used your eschatological vision to support doctrines of divine predestination. Do you think this use is warranted?

Pannenberg: The problem with predestination in the history of Christian thought is that people tend, again and again, to look upon God and His relation to the world as if He is the Creator who would stand at the beginning and look ahead to a future that is distant for Him. Predestination also tends to become deterministic.

But if we take into consideration God’s eternity — that He is the Lord of the future — then He relates to the process of the universe in one moment. When Paul speaks of predestination in Romans 8, the meaning is that our Christian calling is rooted in eternity, in the eternal God. He doesn’t mean this kind of determinism from the beginning of the world.

There is predestination in the sense that God’s relation, and also the Christian calling for each one of us, is rooted in God’s eternity. This is an essential affirmation of the Christian faith. But it need not be understood and should not be understood in a deterministic way, as if, from the beginnings of the process of the universe, everything has been determined by God.

Oord: In your book, Theology and the Kingdom of God, you allude to the fact that, in moment by moment decisions, creatures cooperate with or resist the coming kingdom. How can the present moment be the appearance of the future as the incoming kingdom of God, and yet each moment also be constituted by each creature’s free decision?

Pannenberg: Human beings certainly have choices. This is the basic characteristic of the place of human beings in the world, and choice is what distinguishes human beings from other creatures. We need not respond immediately to the influences we get from the outside or to what our senses tell us about the outside world. We can delay our reaction. We can deliberate and, then, act according to our deliberation. That is what it means to make choices.

The Bible does not consider that as freedom. There is no natural freedom, and making choices does not yet guarantee our freedom. In John 8, we have this conversation between Jesus and his Jewish partners who are proud of being free-born and not slaves. Jesus tells them, “If you sin, you are a slave. You will be free when the Son makes you free.” This is very important.

Christian proclamation should have criticized the Western ideology of freedom by telling the public that having choices doesn’t mean freedom. The alcohol-addicted person or the drug-addicted person is also making choices. The problem is that he or she always makes the same choice — to take the drug or drink the bottle — again and again. Having choices doesn’t yet guarantee freedom.

But, Nietzsche said (and no one is suspicious that he is prejudiced in favor of Christianity) when he talked about the production of his book, Also Spake Zarathustra, that he wrote it under the pressure of inspiration. He said that a human being is free in inspiration. I think he is correct. Inspiration and freedom, i.e., inspiration as the spirit of God and freedom, do not contradict each other. To the contrary, we are freer the more we are lifted beyond ourselves by divine inspiration. We still have choices — we have a broader range of choices — but we also choose the right thing.

Oord: Some claim that your place in history will be greatly affected by whether or not deconstructive postmodernism wins the day. Would you agree? And, how would you characterize your conceptual relationship to deconstructive postmodernism?

Pannenberg: I’m not a particular friend of the deconstructionism. I don’t think that is a good way of philosophy. I am confident that people will find out, sooner or later, that deconstructionism has been a fad that has had its time. But that the time will be limited.

There are some truths to deconstructionism postmodernism. Reality is not as rational as some of the enlightenment thinkers thought it was.

The great philosopher John Locke was not of this persuasion though, because he had a deep respect for the mysterious character of all reality, not only religion but also the world of nature. Reality is always surpassing our knowledge and our understanding of it. If the enlightenment had always followed this concept of reason, postmodernism wouldn’t have been necessary. The overestimation of the rationalist argument, especially in science, brought about postmodernism. In this way, postmodernism has its element of truth.

But we should not give up on reason. The Pope has published a beautiful encyclical on faith and reason. He emphasized that the Christian faith should continue to stick to the alliance of faith and reason that has been essential for Christian truth claims and for Christian mission since the first centuries. We should understand reason in the sense of John Locke, not necessarily in the sense of his empiricist philosophy, but in the sense of his basic intuition that reality surpasses our rational concepts. If we do not, progress in science will be impossible. We hope for progress in science in the next century and maybe even in the century after this one. In that sense, I think we should continue to have high regard for reason. It is rational to acknowledge the fact that reality is greater than what we already know of it.

Oord: As you look to the future, what trends in contemporary philosophy do you see as most promising, and what trends do you find to be most threatening?

Pannenberg: Well, some things that are called “philosophy,” I see as entertainment. For instance, the philosophy of Richard Rorty. But there is also serious philosophy in this country. Take, for instance, the philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. I only mention these as examples.

I hope that philosophy will not be identified exclusively with language analysis, as it has been in past decades in this country. I hope that philosophy will pick up again the great tradition of philosophical thought and the history of metaphysics. I hope that philosophy will develop new approaches to these subjects of philosophical reflection.

Oord: What is your greatest concern for the church as it moves into the next 25 years?

Pannenberg: My greatest concern for the church is that it continue to preach the Gospel and not adapt to secular standards and concerns. Some churches and many church ministers think they have to adapt to the secular concerns of people in order to reach them. I think that the opposite is true. If people were to hear in church only what they also get on television and read in the papers, there would be no need for going to church.

The church has to proclaim a different thing: the hope for eternal life. It must proclaim participation with the crucified Christ through baptism by faith. My concern for the church is that it sticks to that message rather than adapting, lowering, or watering it down by adapting it to secular concerns. It requires some strength to oppose the spirit of the culture. My concern for the church, my hope for the church, is that it will receive constantly that strength for opposing the culture by this message.

]]>http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/pannenberg_dies_an_interview/feed2The Most Neglected Issue in Explanations of Evilhttp://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the_most_neglected_issue_in_efforts_to_solve_the_problem_of_evil
http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the_most_neglected_issue_in_efforts_to_solve_the_problem_of_evil#commentsThu, 04 Sep 2014 14:36:37 +0000http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the_most_neglected_issue_in_efforts_to_solve_the_problem_of_evilIn my current book, I offer a model of providence I call “Essential Kenosis.” One of my main arguments is that this model gives a plausible reason why a loving and powerful God fails to prevent genuine evil. One aspect of my argument, however, addresses what we might call God's "constitution." I find this aspect neglected more than any other by those who address the problem of evil.

]]>In my current book, I offer a model of providence I call “Essential Kenosis.” One of my main arguments is that this model gives a plausible reason why a loving and powerful God fails to prevent genuine evil. One aspect of my argument, however, addresses what we might call God’s “constitution.” I find this aspect neglected more than any other by those who address the problem of evil.

My solution is, I believe, novel, because I point to God’s nature of love as the reason God cannot prevent genuine evil caused by random events or free creatures. My work is funded by the Randomness and Divine Providence project, directed by James Bradley.

But there is another, often overlooked, aspect to what I think is a plausible solution to the problem of evil. This aspect addresses an aspect of the problem of evil not directly tied to God’s love and power.

God as Omnipresent Spirit

It is important to say God cannot prevent genuine evil because doing so requires nullifying the divine nature of love. This is the heart of the essential kenosis model of providence. But another set of issues remain. We can address these issues by asking this question:

If we creatures sometimes thwart a planned terrorist attack by using our bodies, sending agents, or using various instruments, why can’t God do this?

To ask the question more specifically, if wecreatures can step between two combatants and thereby prevent evil, why can’t God do the same? If creatures can use their bodies to prevent evil, why can’t God prevent evil in this way? And if creatures can marshal others to use objects to prevent genuine evil, why doesn’t God do the same?

God is a Loving Spirit

Essential kenosis answers this set of questions by affirming the traditional view that God is a loving spirit and lovingly omnipresent. Unfortunately, those who believe in God often fail to think through the implications of these traditional views.

Believing God is an omnipresent spirit has implications for thinking well about why God cannot unilaterally prevent evil in ways we might sometimes prevent it. Being an omnipresent spirit affords God both unique abilities and unique limitations.

To say God is a loving spirit is to say, in part, God does not have a divine body. God’s essential “being” or “constitution” is spiritual. In fact, because God is spirit, we cannot perceive God with our five senses. Christians have proposed various theories to explain how God’s invisible spiritual life exerts causal influence, and many involve affirming some form of nonsensory causation. The details of these theories deserve fuller explanation than what is possible here.

God is Lovingly Omnipresent

The second divine attribute typically neglected in discussions of evil is God’s universality. God is present to all creation and to each individual entity. God is omnipresent, most believers say. Rather than being localized in a particular place as creatures are localized, the Creator is present to all.

As an omnipresent spirit with no localized divine body, God cannot exert divine bodily influence as a localized corpus. God cannot use a divine body to step between two parties engaged in a fight, for instance. God doesn’t have a wholly divine hand to scoop a rock out of the air, cover a bomb before it explodes, or block a bullet before it projects from a rifle. While we may sometimes be morally culpable for failing to use our localized bodies to prevent such genuine evils, the God without a localized divine body is not culpable.

God cannot prevent evil with a localized divine body, because God is an omnipresent spirit.

God Calls Upon Creatures with Bodies to Love

God can, however, marshal those with localized bodies to exert creaturely bodily impact in various ways. God can call upon a teacher to place her body between a bully and his victim. God can call upon the fire fighter to reach through a burning window to grab a terrified toddler. God can even call upon lesser organisms and entities to use their bodily aspects, in whatever limited way possible, to promote good or prevent evil. We rightly regard the positive responses of less complex organisms, for instance, as instrumental in the physical healings we witness in our world. And we rightly honor humans who respond to God’s calls to use their bodies to prevent genuine evil or do good.

Of course, we with localized bodies do not always respond well to God’s call. God may want to prevent some evil and call upon a creature to use its body for this purpose. But creatures may fail to respond well, disobey, and sin. God is not culpable for the evil that results when we fail to love. God may marshal groups to intercede to help, but these groups may ignore God’s commands. When God calls and we fail to respond well, we are to blame.

Creatures sometimes respond well to God’s call, however. They “listen” to God’s call to prevent some impending tragedy or stop an ongoing conflict. When creatures respond well, we sometimes even say, “God prevented that evil.” This should not mean that God alone prevented it. Creatures cooperated, playing necessary roles by using their bodies to fulfill God’s good purposes. Our saying, “God did it,” simply expresses our belief that God played the primary causal role in the event.

We Can Be God’s Co-Workers

Creaturely cooperation inspired the phrase, “we are God’s hands and feet.” It also inspired the saying “the world is God’s body” and God is the “soul of the universe.” These phrases only make sense, however, if we do not take them literally. We do not literally become divine appendages; the world is not literally a divine corpus. God remains divine; and we and world are God’s creations.

But when creatures respond well to God’s leading, the overall result is that God’s will is done in heaven and on earth. When God’s loving will is done, we might feel provoked to credit, praise, and thank the Creator. And this is appropriate. But when we do so, we can also rightly acknowledge the creaturely cooperation required for establishing what is good. God gets the lion’s share of the credit, but should appreciate creatures who cooperated with their Creator.